1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge texted bailiff, clerk that he can’t…

Criminal Justice

Judge texted bailiff, clerk that he can’t be in court next day because ‘I just shot my wife,’ jurors are told

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 20, 2025, 12:32 pm CST

A California judge admitted that he shot his wife in a text to court personnel, in a police car and when sitting alone in a police interrogation room, jurors were told Wednesday.

Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California is accused of fatally shooting his wife in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances. Their adult son was also present.

Law360, the Associated Press and KABC have coverage.

Ferguson’s defense lawyer maintains that the shooting was an accident, according to the AP.

Orange County, California, Deputy District Attorney Seton Hunt showed jurors a copy of a text to Ferguson’s clerk and bailiff, the articles report.

“I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I’m so sorry,” the text said.

Jurors were also shown a video of Ferguson muttering to himself in a police interrogation room, according to Law360.

“I killed her. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, convict my ass. I did it,” he said.

In the back of the police car, Ferguson said, “I killed my wife. F- – -. Ugh, s- – -,” video showed.

At the police station, Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was 0.065. Hunt said a forensic scientist would testify that the level was likely 0.17 or more when Ferguson’s wife, Sheryl, was shot.

The adult son testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun, according to Law360.

Hunt is seeking a second-degree murder conviction, according to KABC. It’s unclear whether jurors will also be able to consider a manslaughter charge.

See also:

Criminal court judge, 72, arrested in wife’s shooting death

Judge who made ‘reckless’ Facebook allegation about prosecutor is admonished

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2nd Circuit cites push notifications to jurors…

Tort Law

2nd Circuit cites push notifications to jurors as one reason why Sarah Palin deserves new defamation trial

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 28, 2024, 2:54 pm CDT

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican, is entitled to a new trial in her defamation case against the New York Times, partly because a jury finding of no liability was marred by push notifications received by jurors, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York said U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York wrongly intruded on the province of the jury when he ruled during deliberations that the case should be dismissed because of insufficient evidence that the newspaper and one of its editors acted with actual malice.

Rakoff allowed the jury to issue a verdict anyway, and it found no liability. But the verdict was marred by some of Rakoff’s decisions and by push notifications that some jurors received about Rakoff’s finding of no actual malice, the appeals court said in its Aug. 28 opinion.

Law360 covered the 2nd Circuit’s decision in favor of Palin, a Republican who was the 2008 vice presidential candidate. She had sued over a June 2017 editorial linking the shooting of a Democratic congresswoman with a digital crosshairs graphic published by Palin’s political action committee.

Rakoff’s law clerk had learned about the push notifications when interviewing jurors following the verdict to see whether they had problems understanding the legal instructions.

A push notification from a news application can appear at the top of a cellphone or on a lockscreen even when the app is closed, the 2nd Circuit explained.

Jurors said they were not prejudiced by the push notifications, which were “an unfortunate surprise” to Rakoff, the appeals court said. But Rakoff was wrong in concluding that the jury verdict was not prejudiced, the appeals court concluded.

“Given a judge’s special position of influence with a jury, we think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,” the 2nd Circuit said. “We therefore conclude that a new trial is warranted on this basis.”

The 2nd Circuit panel also said Rakoff erred by excluding some evidence offered by Palin and by improper jury instructions.

The New York Times editorial had linked a 2011 shooting that wounded then-U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, a Democrat from Arizona, to a map by Palin’s political action committee showing targeted electoral districts in a crosshairs. Six people were killed in the shooting, including a federal judge.

The New York Times had declared that “the link to political incitement was clear,” even though the attack was viewed as stemming from the perpetrator’s mental illness, according to the 2nd Circuit.

The New York Times later issued corrections saying the crosshairs were placed over targeted electoral districts, not photos of politicians, and saying there was no established link between political rhetoric and the shooting.

Palin sued the New York Times and James Bennet, then the editorial page editor, who had written the sentence about the link to political incitement being clear.

The 2nd Circuit said Rakoff should have allowed evidence that Bennet’s brother, Michael Bennet, was a Colorado Democratic U.S. senator, that Bennet was involved in his brother’s 2010 reelection bid, that the crosshairs map targeted the districts of two Democrats in the House of Representatives who endorsed Bennet’s brother, and that Palin had endorsed the person running against Sen. Bennet.

The appeals court said the evidence was relevant, and it could lead a reasonable juror to infer that Bennet had “a reason to personally dislike Palin, and that it was therefore more likely that he intentionally or recklessly, rather than inadvertently, connected her” to the shooter who wounded Giffords.

Rakoff should also have allowed introduction of three prior New York Times opinion articles that could “be plausibly read” as casting significant doubt on links between the shooting and the crosshairs map, the 2nd Circuit said. Bennet had testified that he “must have read” the prior articles.

Judge John M. Walker Jr., an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, wrote the panel opinion. It was the second time that the 2nd Circuit ruled in the case. Rakoff had previously tossed the case without a trial, but the appeals court ruled in 2019 that he followed the wrong procedure and reinstated the lawsuit.

The case is Palin v. New York Times Co.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. NRA general counsel violated statutory duties…

Verdicts & Settlements

NRA general counsel violated statutory duties but caused no monetary harm, jurors find; LaPierre liable for $5.4M

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2024, 12:41 pm CST

The general counsel for the National Rifle Association was among three senior NRA leaders found to have violated their statutory duties by jurors Friday.

Jurors found former NRA executive vice president and former CEO Wayne LaPierre liable for $5.4 million in damages and former chief financial officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips liable for $2 million. Jurors also found that the NRA didn’t handle charitable funds properly and violated state whistleblower laws.

But jurors found that NRA corporate secretary and general counsel John Frazer did not cause financial harm and was not liable for damages. Jurors found that he made false statements in NRA filings, but there was no cause to remove him.

Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the Feb. 23 verdict in a press release.

Law360, NBC News and the Associated Press have coverage.

James had sued the NRA and top officials for civil fraud. Her lawsuit alleged that LaPierre exploited the NRA for the benefit of himself and his inner circle, using donor money to pay for private jets, expensive meals and family vacations.

According to the press release, James presented evidence that Phillips allegedly had a no-show post-employment contract, that whistleblowers faced harassment and intimidation, that the NRA paid invoices for LaPierre’s repeated flights to the Bahamas, and that invoices worth more than $4 million were passed through a vendor to conceal expenses incurred by NRA executives.

LaPierre has already repaid the NRA more than $1 million, leaving him liable for $4.35 million.

A separate bench trial will determine whether an independent compliance monitor should be appointed. The trial will also determine whether the NRA and Frazer should be barred from soliciting funds for charitable organizations in New York.

A lawyer from Frazer, William Fleming, told Law360 that he is disappointed with the verdict.

In an online statement, the NRA said the jury verdict “confirms what the National Rifle Association of America … contended all along—that it was victimized by certain former vendors and ‘insiders’ who abused the trust placed in them by the association.”

“During a 24-day jury trial, the NRA established the [New York attorney general] cannot prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA board of directors,” the statement said. “The NRA disputed key allegations in the [New York attorney general]’s complaint—namely, that any governance issues at the NRA are ‘persistent.’ As importantly, the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and ‘insiders’ who abused the association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures—part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA board—were adopted before the [New York attorney general] filed her lawsuit. The NRA’s commitment to good governance was on full display during the trial proceedings.”

See also:

“Civil fraud trial seeking independent monitor for NRA begins after CEO’s resignation, official’s $100K settlement”

“Ex-NRA CEO didn’t consult GCs office about key legal decisions, general counsel testifies”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Jurors rule for Davis Polk in former associate’s…

Law Firms

Jurors rule for Davis Polk in former associate’s retaliation suit; defense called his claims a ‘conspiracy theory’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2024, 2:50 pm CST

Federal jurors in New York City ruled for Davis Polk & Wardwell on Monday in a suit by a fired Black associate who claimed the law firm retaliated against him after he complained about racial disparities.

The plaintiff, Kaloma Cardwell, “appeared stoic as the verdict was read,” according to coverage by Law.com, which reports that jurors deliberated for about three hours. Law360, on the other hand, reports that deliberations lasted a little more than two hours.

Jurors found Davis Polk and two former firm leaders who remained in the suit had no liability.

Cardwell had claimed Davis Polk created “a pretextual record” against him, assigned him to fewer M&A deals, gave him lower-level assignments that could be performed by someone with lesser skills, isolated him and ignored him. He was fired in August 2018.

At trial, Cardwell said he was the target of a “secret scheme” to oust him, the Law360 story reports. He testified it was “impossible” that his work was as bad as portrayed in some reviews.

U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods had barred Cardwell from pursuing discrimination claims because of inadequate allegations, but the judge did allow jurors to consider retaliation.

At trial, the defense had contended Cardwell received mixed feedback even before he claimed discrimination, according to the Law.com story. Cardwell’s view of the case was a “conspiracy theory,” according to the closing argument by Davis Polk lawyer Jeh Johnson, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

One witness, professional development manager Rocio Clausen, testified about an instance in which Cardwell refused a request to help the law firm’s credit group with an assignment because it would take time away from his work in the mergers and acquisitions group.

Clausen said Cardwell was working fewer hours than other M&A lawyers, and his reaction “is not the traditional response, especially as an associate at a big, very very good law firm.”

She also described Cardwell’s body language during their meeting as “cavalier.”